375116 Mon Feb 26 12:17:59 -0800 2007 2 34 Wine 0 2330754 Well, I finally managed to have an occasion to drink the New Year's Eve champagne. Thanks for all the replies to my earlier query about how long it was safe to chill in the fridge. I was eager to try this, having read so much about small grower champagnes, RM, Terry Theisse(sp?), etc. and was busy congratulating myself on spending $42 but getting a wine of higher quality than the price. Eh. I don't see it. It was nice enough, and had a pretty nose of yeast, but there didn't seem to be much going on. It was crisp and dry to the point that the word "sour" crossed my mind a time or two. All in all, i've been a lot happier w/ NV Tattinger and Piper Heidsick in the past. I'm a neophyte, and I'm not posting this because I think anyone cares about my review of this wine, but I wonder if those who are familiar w/ the wine can tell me if there is a certain style here that I should avoid in the future, or if perhaps everyone but me knew this one was nothing exceptional. Thanks for reading. Mon Feb 26 12:17:59 -0800 2007 10471 danna 1 2331385 This is Wine Spectator's comments on their Nov 30, 2006 issue re. Gaston Chiquet Brut Tradition: "Rich, yet with deceptive floral and dried berry notes. Builds in finesse as the fine structure emerges on the finish. Very classy, with a delicate mousse. Drink now. –BS" (89 Points) As a general rule, I tend to have a hard time telling apart champagnes. Whenever possible, I try to serve them side-by-side, flights of two. A few days ago I was pleasantly surprised when my favorite (Krug Grand Cuvée, NV, $140) "lost" in comparison with my second-best favorite Billecart-Salmon Brut Rosée, priced at less than half ($65). But I probably wouldn't have been able to tell them apart if I had tried them separately. Next time try the Chiquet side-by-side with whatever you find available at Trader Joe's ( do they still carry the Trouillard?) Also: smaller doesn't necesarily mean better... Mon Feb 26 14:36:06 -0800 2007 2330754 28703 RicRios 1 2333280 Danna - Champagne is, for many people, the most difficult wine in which to distinguish the subtle complexities that do exist within. Still wines are much easier. One of the "obvious" differences is one you discovered yourself: commercial non-vintage Brut Champagnes (like the Tattinger and Piper-Heidsieck you mention) are almost always sweeter than small "grower" Champagnes. [Note: although Brut is the driest category of sparkling wine, it encompasses a range of sweetness, and some are definitely drier (less sweet) than others.] Very dry champagnes are indeed very austere and often "sharp" with acidity. (FWIW, "sour" in the wine world generally denotes the presence of volatile acidity, i.e.: vinegar.) I happen to like the Gaston Chiquet, but it's certainly not for everyone. Nor is it my favorite of Terry Theise's Champagne producers. The Chiquet Brut n.v. is somewhat unusual in that it is dominated by Pinot Meunier, rather than Pinot Noir -- that's not unique, but it is yet another difference between this wine and most of the "big name" labels. FWIW, you can find out a great deal about Terry Theise's Champagnes by looking at his catalogue. You can find it at http://www.skurnikwines.com/msw/documents/2006Champagnecatalog.pdf Tue Feb 27 06:46:33 -0800 2007 2330754 28122 zin1953